287 réponses à ce sujet

[RLesueur]

I think the main reason I don't like the indoctrination theory is because it's proponents are so incredibly irrational and in your face about it.

[GBGriffin]

Grasich wrote...



The point is that the game would then continue after that, where you would continue to make REAL choices. Think of it this way, technically you could choose to lose a boss fight and have that be your ending, but do you consider the necessity to defeat a boss to be a reduction of your choices?

But if you fall to indoctrination, what possible choices could you make? You would have to pick the destroy ending to be able to make future choices, otherwise, you would be indoctrinated.

[STEEEEVE]

Because despite what you can make of the ending, Bioware definitely DID NOT plan to do soemthing like the indoctrination theory, and implying that they did is giving the writers more credit than they deserve.  ESPECIALLY when the iPad app final hours disproves the possibility of Indoctrination theory being what the company was going for.

[flexxdk]

Complistic wrote...

Because they got fooled and picked either synthesis or control. If they then admitted that the indoctrination theory was true, they'd be admitting they got tricked.

And no one willingly makes a fool of themselves.

I chose Destroy and I do not believe the Indoctrination theory.

I find it hard to believe that BW would purposedly withhold the ending from me to either sell as DLC or because there wasn't enough time.

Besides, the iOS app Final Hours of blablabla proved that the Indoc theory was an idea that got scrapped.

[GreyLord]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

Because the idea that bioware would purposely with hold the real ending because they either didn't have time or because they wanted to release it as DLC is quite frankly insulting and is no way to treat loyal customers.

Basically this is what would make me upset.  If they knowingly released an incomplete game or decided that the game was supposed to be incomplete...that would make me FAR more upset than anything they've done with an ending bad...or not.

That's like the sidestreet salesman who wants to sale you a car...only you find out after you bought it that it has no seats in it...since it wasn't quite finished.  Still driveable...but not quite complete.

The other reason is that indoc doesn't have any good ends either.  We've never seen anyone beat indoc unless they were killed, went crazy...or killed themselves.  Even if you supposedly wake up...you basically don't.

[Grasich]

GBGriffin wrote...

Grasich wrote...



The point is that the game would then continue after that, where you would continue to make REAL choices. Think of it this way, technically you could choose to lose a boss fight and have that be your ending, but do you consider the necessity to defeat a boss to be a reduction of your choices?

But if you fall to indoctrination, what possible choices could you make? You would have to pick the destroy ending to be able to make future choices, otherwise, you would be indoctrinated.

Correct, which would be the equivalent of losing a boss fight.

[ohbobsagetpiss]

McScroggz24 wrote...

ohbobsagetpiss wrote...

Kamagawa wrote...

Is it because we are still getting an incomplete game?
or because they don't think bioware has 2 brain cells to rub together?
Perhaps it is because they don't like this kind of ending (like thinking fight club was epic except for the end)?

The point of the ending(s) is that Shepherd gets 3 choices on how to solve the reaper problem. He can destroy, control, or combine synth with organic life. Destroy basically says "organics and sythetics can't get along, so sythetics should be destroyed". That's why EDI and the geth die with this ending. Control gives you a way to preserve all life in hope that organics and synthetics can find a way to cooperate, basically the paragon choice. The synergy ending transcends both organic and synthetic and says "let's be one" so that the fighting (although i disagree) will be stopped. 

Indoctrination "theory" ruins this idea by giving you only one "right" choice, destroy. It's like bioware is saying killing all sythetic life is morally right. All other views are wrong and get you killed. That's why it makes no sense.

Not exactly, it's saying that everything from point A (Likely Harbinger's beam) to point B (The ending, maybe the epilogue or maybe not) never actually happened. They could go in an entirely new route with 3 or 56 different options.

I understand. But some people believe that control and sythesis means you gave into indoctrination. Meaning those endings are to be disregarded. What about the people who like those choices?

[lex0r11]

Grasich wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Grasich wrote...

PsychoHitsPeach wrote...

I don't want the indoctrination theory to be real because indoctrinated people become thralls then die within weeks.

I think you missed the point of the Indoc theory. The theory is that you can AVOID indoc if you chose the destroy ending.

...Which, actually, still means that you're railroaded into a choice.

Want to avoid indoctrination? Pick destroy. Want to succumb to it? Pick the other two.

That's still pretty limiting.

The point is that the game would then continue after that, where you would continue to make REAL choices. Think of it this way, technically you could choose to lose a boss fight and have that be your ending, but do you consider the necessity to defeat a boss to be a reduction of your choices?

it could also modify the rest of the endgame, with destroy being the one with the least handicap and the others resulting in different fights or if someone dies and so on.

just see it as a normandy without upgrades if you choose something else mabye. just saying.

[PlumPaul93]

Because it's a lame attempt to justify bad endings and try to make it seem like there's something more to said bad endings.

RLesueur wrote...

I think the main reason I don't like the indoctrination theory is because it's proponents are so incredibly irrational and in your face about it.

Also this.

Modifié par PlumPaul82393, 20 mars 2012 - 11:05 .

[GBGriffin]

RLesueur wrote...

I think the main reason I don't like the indoctrination theory is because it's proponents are so incredibly irrational and in your face about it.

I mean...it doesn't help that I've run across three threads today calling me an idiot or suggesting I'm foolish for disbelieving in it. It has almost reached a religious level of following.

I dunno. It's pointless to argue about it without an official confirmation or denial. If it keeps you holding the line and lets you enjoy the game, even though it is incomplete by this logic, fine. Just don't be thoroughly disappointed if it turns out to be false.

[aimlessgun]

Kamagawa wrote...

Is it because we are still getting an incomplete game?
or because they don't think bioware has 2 brain cells to rub together?
Perhaps it is because they don't like this kind of ending (like thinking fight club was epic except for the end)?

Because you're a troll. 

[GBGriffin]

Grasich wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Grasich wrote...



The point is that the game would then continue after that, where you would continue to make REAL choices. Think of it this way, technically you could choose to lose a boss fight and have that be your ending, but do you consider the necessity to defeat a boss to be a reduction of your choices?

But if you fall to indoctrination, what possible choices could you make? You would have to pick the destroy ending to be able to make future choices, otherwise, you would be indoctrinated.

Correct, which would be the equivalent of losing a boss fight.

So...again, I'm actually failing to understand how that isn't railroading or driving you toward a "proper" ending. If you want to make future choices, you would have to pick the destroy ending.

[Avissel]

 Because all of Bioware's statements point to the endings being exactly what they are

[Vovea]

Because my fragile hopes can't take the hit when Bioware release a 'Star Tot is definate canon' statement.

Modifié par Vovea, 20 mars 2012 - 11:07 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

Because it doesn't solve anything. OK, Shep was indoctrinated... then what? Did the Reapers win? Someone else activated the Crucible?

[tybbiesniffer]

Thank you for this thread. Good to see more people aren't in love with the whole indoctrination thing. Makes me feel a little less alone.

[GBGriffin]

Avissel wrote...

 Because all of Bioware's statements point to the endings being exactly what they are

It's BioWare's statements and released info (ambiguous as it may be) vs. fan speculation attempting to make sense of it all.

Pick your side and hold the line. No sense in trying to tear each other apart over confrontational threads like this.

[ohbobsagetpiss]

GBGriffin wrote...

RLesueur wrote...

I think the main reason I don't like the indoctrination theory is because it's proponents are so incredibly irrational and in your face about it.

I mean...it doesn't help that I've run across three threads today calling me an idiot or suggesting I'm foolish for disbelieving in it. It has almost reached a religious level of following.

I dunno. It's pointless to argue about it without an official confirmation or denial. If it keeps you holding the line and lets you enjoy the game, even though it is incomplete by this logic, fine. Just don't be thoroughly disappointed if it turns out to be false.

indoc theory=creationism.

[N-Seven]

GBGriffin wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...


That's even more ridiculous than thinking it has meaning.

"Oh let's just keep this in there, mess with our stupid fans, HURR HURR HURR"

What I'm arguing is that they rushed the product. What you're arguing is that they have a hidden conspiracy to release the true ending to the game after launch.

And mine is the argument that sounds more ridiculous?

Believe it all you want. If it keeps you holding the line, more power to you. I'm encouraging people to realize that, without confirmation or denial from BioWare, it is just a fan-made theory. Nothing more at this point. 

Bang-on. 

The ID theory wouldn't have been a bad way to end the game in itself mind you, but you are spot on.

[Grasich]

GBGriffin wrote...

Grasich wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Grasich wrote...



The point is that the game would then continue after that, where you would continue to make REAL choices. Think of it this way, technically you could choose to lose a boss fight and have that be your ending, but do you consider the necessity to defeat a boss to be a reduction of your choices?

But if you fall to indoctrination, what possible choices could you make? You would have to pick the destroy ending to be able to make future choices, otherwise, you would be indoctrinated.

Correct, which would be the equivalent of losing a boss fight.

So...again, I'm actually failing to understand how that isn't railroading or driving you toward a "proper" ending. If you want to make future choices, you would have to pick the destroy ending.

For that part of the game, yes it does limit your choices. The point, as I stated earlier, would be that the game would then continue on and you would make REAL choices. Think of it this way, it means you lose out on 2 endings, but gain many more because you would be able to make more choices later on.

[aliengmr1]

All available evidence says it wasn't planned and the ending we got was the real one. The case for Indoc theory was made early on to me and lacking any evidence, I supported it. Now that I have reasonable evidence that BW planned nothing of the sort, Indoc theory was finished. That said I think its very interesting and if BW chose to run with it, fine. Although, it needs to be made clear that Indoc theory was NOT planned in any way.

[Skyline45]

Kamagawa wrote...

ohbobsagetpiss wrote...

Kamagawa wrote...

Is it because we are still getting an incomplete game?
or because they don't think bioware has 2 brain cells to rub together?
Perhaps it is because they don't like this kind of ending (like thinking fight club was epic except for the end)?

The point of the ending(s) is that Shepherd gets 3 choices on how to solve the reaper problem. He can destroy, control, or combine synth with organic life. Destroy basically says "organics and sythetics can't get along, so sythetics should be destroyed". That's why EDI and the geth die with this ending. Control gives you a way to preserve all life in hope that organics and synthetics can find a way to cooperate, basically the paragon choice. The synergy ending transcends both organic and synthetic and says "let's be one" so that the fighting (although i disagree) will be stopped. 

Indoctrination "theory" ruins this idea by giving you only one "right" choice, destroy. It's like bioware is saying killing all sythetic life is morally right. All other views are wrong and get you killed. That's why it makes no sense.

you aren't distroying all synthetic life, it is the option to distroy the reapers, though to make you feel like you will distroy the Geth which you have now come to like, which is not true.

The start child also mentions that you have cybernetics right after the geth implying you would die, but yet at the end you see him gasp a breath. The ID suggests everything after the beam takes place in shepards head so the geth and EDI dying as a result of the destroy option would only be in his head.

I'm not saying its 100% true. But if its not it seems like they subconsciously wrote it to be like this, and should prob just run with it. I guess we'll have to wait till Bioware decides to comes out of thier bunker.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

If Star Tot becomes Canon. I am going to have a friend of mine encase Mass Effect series in acrylic and use them for coasters.

[tybbiesniffer]

ohbobsagetpiss wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

RLesueur wrote...

I think the main reason I don't like the indoctrination theory is because it's proponents are so incredibly irrational and in your face about it.

I mean...it doesn't help that I've run across three threads today calling me an idiot or suggesting I'm foolish for disbelieving in it. It has almost reached a religious level of following.

I dunno. It's pointless to argue about it without an official confirmation or denial. If it keeps you holding the line and lets you enjoy the game, even though it is incomplete by this logic, fine. Just don't be thoroughly disappointed if it turns out to be false.

indoc theory=creationism.

This is the exact impression I had.  Heartfelt belief without concrete fact.

[ohbobsagetpiss]

GBGriffin wrote...

Grasich wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Grasich wrote...



The point is that the game would then continue after that, where you would continue to make REAL choices. Think of it this way, technically you could choose to lose a boss fight and have that be your ending, but do you consider the necessity to defeat a boss to be a reduction of your choices?

But if you fall to indoctrination, what possible choices could you make? You would have to pick the destroy ending to be able to make future choices, otherwise, you would be indoctrinated.

Correct, which would be the equivalent of losing a boss fight.

So...again, I'm actually failing to understand how that isn't railroading or driving you toward a "proper" ending. If you want to make future choices, you would have to pick the destroy ending.

That's why it falls apart. It's like giving you a canon ending, which hasn't been done in the last 2 games. Why have a "right" ending now?